2. You can't set religion aside and just deal with the term marriage. Marriage is at its essence a religious concept. It means the lifetime union of a man and a woman

3. The government stuck its nose in and began requiring a licence

4. A license grants permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal

5. If the homosexuals are allowed to use the word marriage to identify their version of it, the term will forever be destroyed.

6. We can't let them do it.

7. If they wish to license and bless sodomy as an institution, they can issue a Sodomy License, and confer with it certain special rights, privileges, and exclusive status that the homosexuals are demanding. That is within the purview of the state.

1. Yes, but we can use a different word.

2. You had me up to the "man and woman" part. That's always been assumed, but seldom (or never?) specified. Gays would argue, perhaps with some credibility, that we should remove the implied stigma and replace it with "two people in love".

3. It pretty much had to, considering the MANY legal implications.

4. Or clarifies and codifies something nobody objects to but needs clarification.

5. In whose mind? I hear that from some people I really respect, but am not convinced that the average non-religious couple would feel significantly slighted.

6. If your objections are common to many non-religious people, I agree.

7. Now you're starting to make even more sense, but it still smacks of religious objections. Many religion claim the only purpose of and excuse for intercourse is procreation, that any other form of sex is sodomy, and/or that contraception, by implication including the rhythm method, is a sin. I buy neither idea and suggest people who think that way get a life and get their face out of mine.

You can't set religion aside and just deal with the term marriage. Marriage is at its essence a religious concept. It means the lifetime union of a man and a woman as blessed and ordained by God from the Beginning

So now you are defining my marriage of nearly 30 years as not really a marriage because it was not blessed by a god! Who's god, which (or witch) god?

I know committed gay (sorry) couples and uncommited sraight (sorry, it used to mean "not crooked") couples. Isn't marriage about making a lifetime commitment?

Wow! Simultaneously insults Christians and gays, many of whom will regard "light in his sandals" as ignorant stereotyping. Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid all oppose legalization of gay marriage so presumably we can broaden the definition of bigots beyond Republicans and Christians.

Wow! Simultaneously insults Christians and gays, many of whom will regard "light in his sandals" as ignorant stereotyping. Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid all oppose legalization of gay marriage so presumably we can broaden the definition of bigots beyond Republicans and Christians.

Wow, none of these Democrats have brought forward legislation, much less proposed a constitutional amendment in opposition of gay marriage. How about you direct critique at the side that does. Can you distinguish between personal opinion, policy making and just tolling for votes among bigots?_________________florian - ny22

What I want to know is how divorce fits into the "religious" marriage model. Is divorce only reserved for a man and a woman? And, if gay folks are denied marriage, does that also mean that they will be denied divorce too?

Pelosi et al have all been able to subordinate their "sincerely held" Christian beliefs when supporting legislation relating to similarly sensitive matters such as abortion. Yet they will not support legalization of gay marriage. Anyone who does not recognize that as a political calculation is naive.

Senators and Representatives aside, it's important to remember that abortion was legally granted through the judicial system. When push comes to shove, there's a good chance that legalization of gay marriage will also be granted through the courts.

The idea that twisted religious views will win the day on this is ludicrous. Fortunately in America, they have the right to believe what they want to, but they have absolutely no right to force others to subscribe to their beliefs.

Gay marriage has been on the ballot in 31 states and has been rejected by voters every time. Some on this forum rail against people of religion "forcing" their views on the country, but seem content that the courts do so on this matter in a transparent contradiction to the recorded will of the majority.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum